Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cherwell said:
I agree, we don't know that the fans were ever outside. Why should they be? It was a hot night and the a/c wasn't working, so it makes sense that they would have been in use inside the house.
Click to expand...
Yes. If it was that hot, what good would the fans be doing outside on the balcony? While I agree he should be given the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't mean we have to believe everything happened exactly like he said it did.
 
soozieqtips said:
He should have stated what happened immediately, and not been allowed several days to get his rubbish story together. Yep. He needed a reason to be outside so that he didn't see or hear Reeva allegedly go to the toilet. I feel that his celebrity status has thrown some people off guard, and they don't want to believe he's capable of killing someone in a fit of anger. But if he'd been Mr Nobody down the street, he wouldn't be afforded the same support.
Click to expand...
He hasn't got most of our support :smile:

To be fair though, he's been given the same rights as us. He would be told to say as little as possible, which is the same advice we'd expect, whether guilty or innocent.
 
Playing devils advocate here since I frankly believe very little that comes from OP's mouth.

What if the fans were on the patio but in the doorway of the sliding doors and turned on to bring in whatever cool air there was outside into the room? This would explain why the fans were "on the patio" and why the sliding doors were open for 5 hours.

Now that I have said that, it still doesn't explain WHY OP who was supposed to be so very frightened that an intruder would enter his house would leave the sliding doors open for 5 hours while he and Reeva were asleep.
 
Viper said:
Time yes more time. AFAIK OP did not tell the police his story that night, he told Stipp he though he had a monstrous heavily armed intruder on his hands and he dealt with him accordingly / just sarcasm, sorry! He and his team, which included forensics and pathology experts had IIRC 5 days to create his fantasy accident. It is interesting that if you remove a single element of what he said that relates to why he got out if bed and why he overlooked Reeva, his story falls completely apart. The fans for example, he had to go outside to get them that made him awake alert and outside away from Reeva - the silly fans were never outside, he just needs a reason for being up and away. The ladders, well they were laying flat on the ground and were not tall enough to reach the window anyway, but a team walking through the crime scene would incorporate that in to the story. It was too dark to see Reeva, that's because he closed the door on that very hot night and the curtains and whatever else so that it was pitch black, again nice detail. I could go on.
Click to expand...

BBM - I agree. Also, his saying he closed the doors, closed the blinds, and closed the curtains is simply "too many details" IMO to sound true; especially since he didn't bother to say how he happened to wake up to begin with... such as "I woke up because I was too hot" or say why he was bringing the fans in.
 
weeeva said:
No I don't own a gun. Thankfully I live in a country where practically no one owns a gun. I am looking at it from the point of view that OP is telling the truth. I don't necessarily believe that he is, I am just keeping an open mind as I would if I sat on a jury. It is one thing filling in a questionnaire correctly to obtain a gun license and another how that person will behave with that gun in real life situations. Any one can fill in a form correctly provided they have the intelligence to do so. I am not arguing that he should walk away a free man, my argument is whether or not he is telling the truth. If the verdict is that he is telling the truth I trust the judge will pass the sentence for that crime. OP has not done himself any favours by pleading not guilty to the other gun crimes he is charged with, whether this will have a negative outcome remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

His pleading not guilty to the other three charges in the face of damning evidence looks very strange on the surface doesn't it? To many it looks dumb, shows a lack of personal responsibility for certain, and it is risky because it allowed Nel to bring in so much about OP character flaws.

But if you look at what they represent it may be Roux's strategy of trying to explain to the court something like this: "My client is always reckless and irresponsible with guns, that is why when he became panicked terrified and felt vulnerable he acted out in the horrible way he did. He wishes that he had taken note of his lack of capability to responsibly own and handle guns before the accident, but he knows now. It is really not his fault, he wishes that he had never bought that gun and he refuses to own another for the rest of his life. Further accidents like what happened on that tragic night with not occur again in the future, we assure you My Lady."
 
Viper said:
His pleading not guilty to the other three charges in the face of damning evidence looks very strange on the surface doesn't it? To many it looks dumb, shows a lack of personal responsibility for certain, and it is risky because it allowed Nel to bring in so much about OP character flaws.

But if you look at what they represent it may be Roux's strategy of trying to explain to the court something like this: "My client is always reckless and irresponsible with guns, that is why when he became panicked terrified and felt vulnerable he acted out in the horrible way he did. He wishes that he had taken note of his lack of capability to responsibly own and handle guns before the accident, but he knows now. It is really not his fault, he wishes that he had never bought that gun and he refuses to own another for the rest of his life. Further accidents like what happened on that tragic night with not occur again in the future, we assure you My Lady."
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is the questionnaire that he answered in order to purchase guns. When he fired that gun in the crowded restaurant he was going against what he stated as his answer was in that questionnaire. When he fired that gun out of the car through the sunroof he was going against what he stated as his answer was in that questionnaire. When he shot Reeva three times and fired four bullets into the toilet room door he was going against what he stated as his answer was in that questionnaire. The questionnaire proves that he knows how to responsibly handle a gun, his actions prove that he just doesn't give a d@mn.

MOO
 
Hi Guys, Just wanted to thank you all for your great posts, I'm afraid I am in poor health at the moment and haven't been able to join is as I would have liked but the courts postponement is giving me a chance to catch up and I hope to join in more next week.
IMO OP is guilty of Culpable Homicide, I am not convinced of premeditated murder so far but I promised myself I would look on it from a Jurors/judges point of view and hear ALL the evidence before judging.
I do feel that 'something' changed with the whole case yesterday, but who knows? Nel seemed to be making a big point with regard to the Ipads when he repeatedly asked the witness To confirm they were then handed back to the defense!
I am very interested in the mind works of OP and IMO he may be a God in Athletics but I suspect behind closed doors he has massive insecurities and perhaps have problems with his Manhood. I say this as the substance they thought was a steroid turned out to be herbal, used not only in Athletes but also as a Sexual stimulant, would also account for the *advertiser censored* maybe?
OP is not used to anyone saying no to him in any part of his life and has shown he's not a good loser. Minors point about his child-like behaviour in court was very true, He does look like a child who can't cope!
I think the Police made a complete hash of the crime scene on first arrival and Roux has certainly put doubt into the mix with his arguments, I note alot think he is wrong for his questioning but he is doing exactly what he should do and I have no doubt is fully respected by the State for doing this.
Finally, looking at OP's defense, at first I did think why did he not find out where Reeva was and talk etc, why the fear of intrusion to the point of mania. Having researched a little into the crime rate in SA I changed my view. Barbaric incidents do happen and the rich are the main targets. He had already recieved death threats and Reeva and her Mother had been through a terrifying armed robbery in their own home. I can't imagine feeling the same fear and thankfully here in Cornwall, UK we don't have such everyday incidents!
Reeva's Mum and friends all say that Reeva would not argue and hated confrontation so I question other than screaming how much actual arguing she did.
IF OP is guilty, I hope they throw the book at him but I am not yet convinced they have proven pre-meditated Murder.
Instinct tells me, he has had a rage of jealousy (insecurity caused) and flipped. I look forward to him taking the stand as I think he WILL be seen for 'whatever' he is, good or bad. He is known as Mr Charming by most but I think behind the facade is someone who cannot bear to lose and is massively insecure behind closed doors. It is almost like he family and friends 'baby' him and treat him with kid gloves to keep him happy. Would love to see Nel rattle him on the stand as it would show the real him perhaps!
So sorry for the length of this, just wanted to share my thoughts. May Justice be served for poor Reeva, what she must have felt in that room is beyond words!
Thanks my lovely Sleuthers!
 
TorisMom003 said:
The only problem with that is the questionnaire that he answered in order to purchase guns. When he fired that gun in the crowded restaurant he was going against what he stated as his answer was in that questionnaire. When he fired that gun out of the car through the sunroof he was going against what he stated as his answer was in that questionnaire. When he shot Reeva three times and fired four bullets into the toilet room door he was going against what he stated as his answer was in that questionnaire. The questionnaire proves that he knows how to responsibly handle a gun, his actions prove that he just doesn't give a d@mn.

MOO
Click to expand...

I agree with you! But what I put in my post is the only reason that I can think of to explain why Roux did not demand that OP plead guilty to the three charges. I mean all of the character testimony was connected to those charges so...

That being said, OP really really really does not want to spend even one day in prison, he must believe he is going to walk in all counts. Such an optimist!
 
Viper said:
His pleading not guilty to the other three charges in the face of damning evidence looks very strange on the surface doesn't it? To many it looks dumb, shows a lack of personal responsibility for certain, and it is risky because it allowed Nel to bring in so much about OP character flaws.

But if you look at what they represent it may be Roux's strategy of trying to explain to the court something like this: "My client is always reckless and irresponsible with guns, that is why when he became panicked terrified and felt vulnerable he acted out in the horrible way he did. He wishes that he had taken note of his lack of capability to responsibly own and handle guns before the accident, but he knows now. It is really not his fault, he wishes that he had never bought that gun and he refuses to own another for the rest of his life. Further accidents like what happened on that tragic night with not occur again in the future, we assure you My Lady."
Click to expand...
It does seem almost like he shot himself in the foot regarding the gun incidents. Nel must have loved having OP's mates there providing perfect prosecution character witnesses. That's been one of the biggest slam dunks in the case so far.
 
Insp.Dots said:
Hi Guys, Just wanted to thank you all for your great posts, I'm afraid I am in poor health at the moment and haven't been able to join is as I would have liked but the courts postponement is giving me a chance to catch up and I hope to join in more next week.
IMO OP is guilty of Culpable Homicide, I am not convinced of premeditated murder so far but I promised myself I would look on it from a Jurors/judges point of view and hear ALL the evidence before judging.
I do feel that 'something' changed with the whole case yesterday, but who knows? Nel seemed to be making a big point with regard to the Ipads when he repeatedly asked the witness To confirm they were then handed back to the defense!
I am very interested in the mind works of OP and IMO he may be a God in Athletics but I suspect behind closed doors he has massive insecurities and perhaps have problems with his Manhood. I say this as the substance they thought was a steroid turned out to be herbal, used not only in Athletes but also as a Sexual stimulant, would also account for the *advertiser censored* maybe?
OP is not used to anyone saying no to him in any part of his life and has shown he's not a good loser. Minors point about his child-like behaviour in court was very true, He does look like a child who can't cope!
I think the Police made a complete hash of the crime scene on first arrival and Roux has certainly put doubt into the mix with his arguments, I note alot think he is wrong for his questioning but he is doing exactly what he should do and I have no doubt is fully respected by the State for doing this.
Finally, looking at OP's defense, at first I did think why did he not find out where Reeva was and talk etc, why the fear of intrusion to the point of mania. Having researched a little into the crime rate in SA I changed my view. Barbaric incidents do happen and the rich are the main targets. He had already recieved death threats and Reeva and her Mother had been through a terrifying armed robbery in their own home. I can't imagine feeling the same fear and thankfully here in Cornwall, UK we don't have such everyday incidents!
Reeva's Mum and friends all say that Reeva would not argue and hated confrontation so I question other than screaming how much actual arguing she did.
IF OP is guilty, I hope they throw the book at him but I am not yet convinced they have proven pre-meditated Murder.
Instinct tells me, he has had a rage of jealousy (insecurity caused) and flipped. I look forward to him taking the stand as I think he WILL be seen for 'whatever' he is, good or bad. He is known as Mr Charming by most but I think behind the facade is someone who cannot bear to lose and is massively insecure behind closed doors. It is almost like he family and friends 'baby' him and treat him with kid gloves to keep him happy. Would love to see Nel rattle him on the stand as it would show the real him perhaps!
So sorry for the length of this, just wanted to share my thoughts. May Justice be served for poor Reeva, what she must have felt in that room is beyond words!
Thanks my lovely Sleuthers!
Click to expand...
Hope you're better soon :getwell:

I touched on the iPad situation a while ago regarding the incident that happened in court (iPad voice activates / court laughs).

Nel said 'I'm so sorry, My Lady,' and then explained that it was a recording of an argument unrelated to the case.

I'm still not convinced that is wasn't done on purpose to let Roux know that there was something incriminating on the iPad.

There was a big huddle between OP and his lawyers etc. afterwards.
 
steveml said:
There are a few things there that don't quite fit regarding OP's alleged paranoia, I agree. The one thing I wouldn't place a lot of weight on is the time of food consumption. This is notoriously one of the hardest things to calculate, as any pathologist would agree. Stomach contents are more useful during an autopsy to see if there are any toxins in there, and to identify the last food ingested, if any. To even get within hours of a good estimate the exact size of the meal, liquid consumption, stress levels, rate of digestion and possible medication interaction needs to be known. It's an inexact science. Pathologists will offer a time if pushed, but they are never happy about this. This problem is accepted by both prosecution and defense attorneys, and occurs quite regularly. This is why they never spend too much time arguing the point.
Click to expand...

I know it is not an exact science but given they went to bed at 10pm, if I am to believe OP's story they would have needed to have eaten by around 9.30pm at the latest. That would give a time of around 5.5 hours post ingestion. The pathologist would know whether or not she was taking any of the drugs associated with shortened or extended emptying and I assume she was known not to have had diabetes or another illness that would shorten/extend the emptying time or we would have heard about it in the pathologist's report. To extend gastric emptying to 5.5 hours she would have to have eaten either a large meal or a very highly calorific meal. It will be interesting to hear from OP what, in fact, they did eat. I am talking here of total gastric emptying. RS still had food in her stomach.
 
nastasya said:
OP's own affidavit describes premeditated murder:

1. OP is standing in front of bedroom door that exits the house onto the deck.
2. OP hears a window open in another room.
3. OP gets a gun.
4. OP moves out of room that has 2 doors from which he could exit.
5. OP moves through hallway towards person in bathroom.
6. OP walks into center of bathroom in vulnerable position.
7. OP does not see intruder. OP hears person making sounds in toilet.
8. OP sprays four black talon bullets through toilet door.

That entire sequence of events is, by law, the definition of premeditated murder.

It wasn't an accident. He didn't accidentally discharge the gun four times. He didn't intentionally discharge the gun four times not knowing there was a person in his line of fire.

OP intentionally left a room where he was safe, and from which he could have exited, entered into a second room, and intentionally fired a gun four times at somebody who wasn't threatening him in any way.

Saying, "I thought the person I killed might threaten me..." is not a valid legal defense. If it were, every husband in the world would have legal grounds to shoot his wife whenever she used the bathroom.
Click to expand...



Bravo --- sums up what I believe happened as well. I think OP is full ot bull, full of ego, and full of privilege.
 
steveml said:
Hope you're better soon :getwell:

I touched on the iPad situation a while ago regarding the incident that happened in court (iPad voice activates / court laughs).

Nel said 'I'm so sorry, My Lady,' and then explained that it was a recording of an argument unrelated to the case.

I'm still not convinced that is wasn't done on purpose to let Roux know that there was something incriminating on the iPad.

There was a big huddle between OP and his lawyers etc. afterwards.
Click to expand...

OMG, that is too funny!

I'm so wondering if it was done on purpose. At any rate, I would expect that defense added it to a list of "reasons for appeal," if it comes to that. lol
 
steveml said:
Hope you're better soon :getwell:

I touched on the iPad situation a while ago regarding the incident that happened in court (iPad voice activates / court laughs).

Nel said 'I'm so sorry, My Lady,' and then explained that it was a recording of an argument unrelated to the case.

I'm still not convinced that is wasn't done on purpose to let Roux know that there was something incriminating on the iPad.

There was a big huddle between OP and his lawyers etc. afterwards.
Click to expand...

I have been following the trial only on twitter, so I was not able to see/hear this incident. What was your impression of OP in that moment: was he scared, when the voices from iPad gave out? Perhaps he recognized the dispute because he was involved??
 
steveml said:
He hasn't got most of our support :smile:

To be fair though, he's been given the same rights as us. He would be told to say as little as possible, which is the same advice we'd expect, whether guilty or innocent.
Click to expand...
BBM - I didn't mean specifically here. The Guardian for example has been portraying OP and Amanda Knox as victims whenever it gets the chance, and I'm pretty sure if the 'victims' weren't well known, that the coverage would be much less and not as biased. With Amanda Knox, the paper even published a defence against their support of Knox when people began to complain that the real victim had been forgotten (not unlike Reeva).
 
steveml said:
Hope you're better soon :getwell:

I touched on the iPad situation a while ago regarding the incident that happened in court (iPad voice activates / court laughs).

Nel said 'I'm so sorry, My Lady,' and then explained that it was a recording of an argument unrelated to the case.

I'm still not convinced that is wasn't done on purpose to let Roux know that there was something incriminating on the iPad.

There was a big huddle between OP and his lawyers etc. afterwards.
Click to expand...

I am still wondering about that because I am sure it wasn't a human voice - it was one of those strange robotic ones. I don't think he did it on purpose - he looked dumbfounded!
 
FromGermany said:
I have been following the trial only on twitter, so I was not able to see/hear this incident. What was your impression of OP in that moment: was he scared, when the voices from iPad gave out? Perhaps he recognized the dispute because he was involved??
Click to expand...

What I saw - everyone was smiling. It was very funny and very strange. To me, the voice sounded like a female robot's. If it turns out to be a real South African woman, I'm very sorry!
 
steveml said:
Hope you're better soon :getwell:

I touched on the iPad situation a while ago regarding the incident that happened in court (iPad voice activates / court laughs).

Nel said 'I'm so sorry, My Lady,' and then explained that it was a recording of an argument unrelated to the case.

I'm still not convinced that is wasn't done on purpose to let Roux know that there was something incriminating on the iPad.

There was a big huddle between OP and his lawyers etc. afterwards.
Click to expand...

Just to clear this up, the message that was played was a note of what Nel was about to ask for(case to be adjourned until monday), after the message is played Nel says "i'm so sorry i've got an argument on there i wanted to argue now", he then makes the request for the adjournment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 1,734 (members: 73, guests: 1,661)

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
1,661
Total visitors
1,734
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,893
Messages
18,212,465
Members
233,992
Latest member
gisberthanekroot
Back
Top